Williams v. Cates et al
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATION to Deny Plaintiff's Motions for Injunctive Relief re 102 , 103 , signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 8/8/17. Referred to Judge O'Neill. Twenty-One Day Objection Deadline. (Gonzalez, R)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
HORACE MANN WILLIAMS,
CATE, et al.,
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR
(Doc. 102, 103)
Case No. 1:12-cv-00730-LJO-SKO (PC)
TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE
On July 26, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking an order directing that two boxes of his
legal materials which are stored at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (“SATF”)
be sent to him at his current facility of incarceration -- Mule Creek State Prison (“MCSP”). (Doc.
102.) On August 7, 2017, Plaintiff filed another motion in which he indicates that he has received
one of the boxes of his legal materials from SATF, but that he needs the other one as well to
prosecute this action. (Doc. 103.) Both of these motions are construed as seeking preliminary
As a threshold matter, Plaintiff must establish that he has standing to seek preliminary
injunctive relief. Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 493-94, 129 S.Ct. 1142, 1149
(2009); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). Plaintiff “must show that
he is under threat of suffering an ‘injury in fact’ that is concrete and particularized; the threat
must be actual and imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; it must be fairly traceable to
challenged conduct of the defendant; and it must be likely that a favorable judicial decision will
prevent or redress the injury.” Summers, 555 U.S. at 493 (citation and quotation marks omitted);
Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969.
The claims on which Plaintiff proceeds in this action arise from events that occurred at
Kern Valley State Prison (“KVSP”). However, Plaintiff was apparently transferred to SATF and
is currently housed at MCSP. Plaintiff thus lacks standing in this action to seek relief directed at
remedying his current conditions of confinement at MCSP or to require SATF staff to forward his
legal property to him. Thus, Plaintiff=s motions for a preliminary injunction should be denied.1
However, the Wardens and Litigation Offices at SATF and MCSP, as well as defense counsel, are
requested to look into the matter and facilitate the delivery of the second box of legal property
from SATF to Plaintiff at MCSP.
Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff=s motions for
injunctive relief, filed on July 26, 2017, (Doc. 102) and August 7, 2017, (Doc. 103), be DENIED.
The Clerk’s Office is directed to forward a copy of this order and Plaintiff's motions to the
Wardens’ offices and Litigation Coordinators at SATF and MCSP to assist them with attempting
to locate and facilitating the delivery of Plaintiff’s second box of legal property.
These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 21
days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written
objections with the Court. Local Rule 304(b). The document should be captioned “Objections to
Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the
specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834,
839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
August 8, 2017
Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff=s motion also fails to make the requisite showing, supported by admissible evidence, to obtain a
preliminary injunction. Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20-4, 129 S.Ct. 365, 376
(2008). However, it is unnecessary to reach the merits of Plaintiff=s motions in light of the fact that Plaintiff lacks
standing on this issue.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?